|
Author
|
Topic: justify the use or purchase of the testing tools
|
qa_tester
Guru
Posts: 363
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 10-18-2001 01:13 PM
    
Any one has a website or study about justifying the use or purchase of Unit testing testing tools? ------------------
|
testgeek
Advanced Guru
Posts: 829
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 10-18-2001 01:20 PM
Ask the vendors or visit their websites. They have to justify their tools all day long.
|
qa_tester
Guru
Posts: 363
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 10-18-2001 01:26 PM
No i mean like white papers or reports, or any link in the website.------------------
|
QAGirl
Moderator
Posts: 2424
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 10-19-2001 04:56 AM
A generalized white paper or link is only of so much use. You need to justify why and how automation would benefit your own organization. Do a search at stickyminds.com or within the threads here for basic arguements and reasons, or check out Elfriede's book Automated Software Testing. Then, when you understand the benefits in general, you should tailor them to your companies needs and environment.------------------
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection - the lovers, the dreamers and me...
|
jgottlieb
Moderator
Posts: 1442
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-19-2001 05:33 AM
www.newport-group-inc.com/PDF/!mercury.pdf This is a third party kinda thing, but it was given to me by a Mercury rep. I quoted lots of it in my proposal to my bosstypes. And, of course, there's Elfriede's book.  ------------------
"Where no dog has gone before..."
Jordan Gottlieb
Qualitech Solutions, Inc.
jgottlieb@qualitechsolutions.com
|
qa_tester
Guru
Posts: 363
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 10-19-2001 06:24 AM
well hte idea is my company wants to purchase testing tools, and we want the client to pay for it. So i have to write a report explain to the client why we need testing tools, how important is the testing tools in general. So i want so information/fact from the net illustrate the importance of the testing tools------------------
|
jgottlieb
Moderator
Posts: 1442
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-19-2001 06:34 AM
That article will have information you'll find useful... ------------------
"Where no dog has gone before..."
Jordan Gottlieb
Qualitech Solutions, Inc.
jgottlieb@qualitechsolutions.com
|
Elfriede Dustin
Moderator
Posts: 600
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-19-2001 05:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by qa_tester:
Any one has a website or study about justifying the use or purchase of Unit testing testing tools?
Are you referring to Unit testing tools or System testing tools?
Unit testing tools are tools such as memory leak detection tools, code coverage tools, path coverage tools, etc.
Memory leak detection is very difficult without any automation, so is code coverage or path coverage testing.
Your third email in this thread makes me believe though you are interested in justifying system testing tools, such as Capture/Playback testing tools. If the latter is the case, you might find this white paper helpful (also discussed in our book "Automated Software Testing"): http://www.imbus.de/forschung/pie24306/gui/aquis-full_paper-1.3.html The results discussed in this paper are based on a one-year research study conducted by this company imbus. quote:
From www.imbus.de's website:
The question of main interest is: How often does a specific test have to be repeated before automated testing becomes cheaper than manual testing? In the above table this "break-even" point is represented by the N-factor, in accordance with the equation EN = Aa/Am = 100%. The measurements undertaken within our experiments show that a break-even can already be attained by the 2nd regression test cycle (Ntotal =2,03). This break-even, however, does have two prerequisites: the tests must run completely without human interaction (e.g. overnight test runs), and no further test script modifications are necessary to rerun the tests in later releases of the product. As already mentioned in this lecture, this is not easy to achieve. If all you do is buy a CR-Tool and begin capturing, then your testing costs will increase to between 125% and 150% of manual testing costs (see E1 in fig. 7). And there will be additional costs associated with each test run because of traps such as test script maintenance. On the other hand, if you establish a complete framework for GUI test automation (where the CR-Tool is a cornerstone and not the complete solution), then a decrease of costings down to about 40% for a typical product test cycle (E10) is realistic.
For additional ideas, please take a look at the white paper
"TestAutomation and Return On Investment" located at http://www.testquest.com/ROI/index.html HTH,
Elfriede [This message has been edited by Elfriede Dustin (edited 10-21-2001).]
|
